In Re Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently January 1999 · most notably 53 Cal. 2d 370 - People v. Banks (1959), 8 Cal. 3d 451 - People v. Vickers (1972)
99 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Escoe v. Zerbst · People v. Williams · 37 Cal. 2d 62 - People v. Perkins · 96 Cal. App. 2d 141 - In Re Dearo · 16 Cal. App. 2d 606 - People v. Blankenship
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are satisfied that there is neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to notice and hearing preceding revocation of probation. The federal Constitution does not give such a right. (Escoe v. Zerbst (1935), 295 U.S. 490, 492 [ 55 S.Ct. 818 , 79 L.Ed. 1566 ].) And we do not believe that section 13 of article I of our state Constitution should be held to give petitioner a greater right in this respect than he is accorded under the federal Constitution, for under our law, as under the federal law, probation is not a right but a privilege (see People v. Williams (1944), 24 Cal.2d 848, 855 [ 151 P.2d 244 ]; Escoe v. Zerbst, supra). "Unlike the federal statute, which contains the mandatory provision that a rearrested probationer ‘shall’ be taken before the court ( 18 U.S.C.A. § 3653 ; Escoe v. Zerbst, supra, p. 493 of 295 U.S.), our statute provides that he ‘may’ be taken before the court (Pen. Code, § 1203.2). 6 6 “. . . We are satisfied that neither the Constitution of the United States nor that of California precludes ex parte revocation of probation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Mason“in criminal prosecutions, in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend, in person and with counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.